Title Greek and Roman slavery.pdf ✅

Ricardo Fortune AH2553 Greek and Roman slavery IN WHAT WAYS DID SLAVERY IN THE GREEK WORLD RESEMBLE ROMAN SLAVERY, AND IN WHAT WAYS DID THE TWO DIFFER?

property of others. Ste. Croix defined the word “slave” thusly— “The status or condition of a person over whom all the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised” (1981, p.135, cited in AH2553, p.22). The rights of ownership described by Ste. Croix are for the most part the same ones acknowledged by our modern legal systems and which Honoré (1961, cited in AH2553, p.40) lists as being observed almost universally. They are the following: (1) right to possess, (2) right to use, (3) right to manage, (4) right to income, (5) right to capital, (6) right to security, (7) transmissibility, (8) absence of term, (9) prohibition of harmful use, (10) liability to execution (AH2553, p.40; Harris, 2002, p.416). These rights and responsibilities towards the slave seem to have been shared by Greeks and Romans alike. Becoming a slave in antiquity could happen in various ways. The most common way was during warfare. It was universally agreed upon, according to Xenophon (Cyr. 7.5.73), that the vanquished and his possessions, belonged to the victor (Harris, 2002, p.425). Both Greek and Romans acquired an important number of slaves through warfare. Going to war ultimately meant “who would have the power to enslave whom” (Braund, 2011, p.115). Though they generally made sure to have legitimate motives for waging war, it is very likely that the possibility of enslaving their enemies and seize their goods was a major incentive that prompted the launching of many military expeditions. Aristotle (Pol.1257b) seems to be comfortable with the idea of waging war for the purpose of acquiring slaves (see Braund’s comments on this, 2011, p.120), and many important figures in Greco-Roman history became wealthy because of war booty. Though they could enslave their enemies, they were under no obligation to do so, especially when they were fighting their own. This reluctance to enslave their own as mentioned above, is shown in the historical record of classical Greece, in that there were few Greek slaves (Garland, 1987, cited in Braund,2011, p.116) even though Greeks frequently fought each other. Sparta, Crete and few other Greeks poleis might have dissented from this general rule, but even in the case of Sparta, they showed reluctance in enslaving the Athenians in 404 (Xenophon, Hellenica,2.2.20), because of the great service Athens earlier rendered to Greece in defeating the Persians. This, however, could be just a pragmatic gesture of clemency, rather than being motivated by any moral scruples about enslaving other Greeks. They had much more to gain in the future by not enslaving the Athenians. Conversely, it was clear in classical Rome that the citizens could not ever legally become slaves. The Romans took status very seriously. As Harper (2011, p.394) put it, status was “absolute, objective, and unalterable by private contract”. There were rare instances of penal servitude, but this was a prerogative that the state utilised to punish under some circumstances (Gardener,2011, p.415). It was not a legal means by which the common citizen could legitimately acquire slaves. For the Romans, slaves were to be those who fraudulently sold themselves into slavery, those captured in war or purchased from a trader, and those who descended from a female slave (Wiedemann, 1994, p.106). It was fraudulent for a free person to sell himself as a slave, since the Roman law prohibited this. Some still managed to do it, with the deceitful intent to share in the profit of the transaction. They would, in all probability, get an accomplice to sell them, split the profit, and then later, claim their freedom. The buyer was powerless and had to let them go. If they were caught in the process, they were punished with permanent slavery. One could offer himself as a security to his creditor, until the debt was repaid (Gardener, 2011, p.415). This type